• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Even The Party Faithful

:shrug: clinton hasn't been too badly tarnished by the fact that he handed off the dot-com bust to Bush; we'll see how much of history focuses on the mortgage bubble bursting vice democracy in the Middle East.

Actually, people have been looking back to the Clinton years as the good old days. I didn't agree with Clinton on everything and didn't vote for him. But I have to say he did a much better job than Bush did over all. He brought us the Family Leave Act which I like. I didn't like the scandles or his involvement with Kosovo. Over all, I agreed with him about 50% of the time. As for Bush, I thought he did very well his first two years. After that, he dropped the ball. I think he let Cheney manipulate him way too much.
 
Not really...

I think I'll need to see some verification on that first sentence of yours and the rest is typical liberal hyperbolic spin and has no basis in reality.

Weren't you the one who said you didn't have any idea? Now you are trying to tell me i am wrong? Sorry, but learn from your intellectual superiors.
 
Actually, people have been looking back to the Clinton years as the good old days.

well yeah, that's sort of precisely my point. folks don't seem to be holding it against him that he handed off the dot-com bust to Bush, so we'll have to wait and see if 15 years or so from now they are blaming Bush for handing off the mortgage bust to Obama.

I didn't agree with Clinton on everything and didn't vote for him. But I have to say he did a much better job than Bush did over all. He brought us the Family Leave Act which I like. I didn't like the scandles or his involvement with Kosovo. Over all, I agreed with him about 50% of the time. As for Bush, I thought he did very well his first two years. After that, he dropped the ball. I think he let Cheney manipulate him way too much.

Where Bush went wrong is where he let his heart do his thinking for him. NCLB was a good idea gone terribly wrong, amnesty was a disaster, and keynesian stimulus to 'prime the pump' and 'help people now' turned out to do more harm than good. In the year after his reelection, he tried to reform Social Security, and he is responsible for democracy in the Middle East. That's the highlights of his Presidency. We will see if the mortgage bubble overshadows them or not.
 
You do realize the mortgage bubble wqas created by deregulation of the industry, and things like Toxic loans created to boost demand by people long before obama became president?

Apparently you lack reading comprehension. That's okay, I've dealt with lots of people who came out of the public schools system. I'll highlight the relevant section for you:

clinton hasn't been too badly tarnished by the fact that he handed off the dot-com bust to Bush; we'll see how much of history focuses on the mortgage bubble bursting vice democracy in the Middle East.

This is an implicit parity claim - namely, that Clinton handing off the dot com bust is roughly analogous to Bush handing off the mortgage bust.

You do realize the rich avoided paying for their toxic loans by passing off that bad debt to small investors using a rating system they created and verified? None of these things was allowed by obama, despite you wanting to blame him.

I do not nor have I ever blamed Obama for the crash. I blame him for screwing up the recovery.
 
name one way bush made america better in his 8 years as president.

Only one? Sure.

He brought us out of a recession by cutting taxes. (a recession handed to him by a Democratic President, I might add)
 
Weren't you the one who said you didn't have any idea? Now you are trying to tell me i am wrong? Sorry, but learn from your intellectual superiors.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I asked for verification of one of your statements and dismissed the rest as liberal spin.
 
well yeah, that's sort of precisely my point. folks don't seem to be holding it against him that he handed off the dot-com bust to Bush, so we'll have to wait and see if 15 years or so from now they are blaming Bush for handing off the mortgage bust to Obama.



Where Bush went wrong is where he let his heart do his thinking for him. NCLB was a good idea gone terribly wrong, amnesty was a disaster, and keynesian stimulus to 'prime the pump' and 'help people now' turned out to do more harm than good. In the year after his reelection, he tried to reform Social Security, and he is responsible for democracy in the Middle East. That's the highlights of his Presidency. We will see if the mortgage bubble overshadows them or not.

The dot-com bubble didn't cause an all out economic melt down. The housing bubble caused a lot of people to lose their homes. I would say it is easy to forget the dot-com bubble given the loss of homes is more painful than the loss of your nest egg.
 
Out of all of your post, these are the two point I will comment on.
1. Are you better off than you where 4 years ago. This question should make the wealthy class vote for Obama. The wealthy have been making out very good with corporate executives being given huge bonuses while laying off workers or shipping jobs over seas. The statistics show that the wealthy class has been doing very well over the las 4 years. A better question would be, what does Romney plan to do to rebuild the middle class, which would bring strength to the economy. Romney claims he will create 12 million jobs. How does he plan to do this?
2. The Rush jab about Sandra Fluke is getting old. Sandra Fluke spoke out about how women's health is being ignored. Men's viagra is covered under health care plans as a treatment for a real medical problem. Birth control pills are also used to treat real medical problems, like the prevention of ovarian cysts that can lead to a complete or partcial historectomy. Yet, birth control pills were not being covered on health care plans. Sandra Flukes message had nothing to do with having sex. If you had turned the channel on Rush and listened to what Sandra Fluke was actually saying, you would know this.

The GOP has not helped itself by degrading women and women's health issues. This is why Romney is doing so poorly among women.[/QUOTE]

Things are changing.

"Despite a significant outreach effort to female voters and Democratic accusations of a GOP 'war on women,' a new Bloomberg poll shows Obama losing ground among women from his 2008 vote share.

In a head-to-head matchup with Mitt Romney, women voters back Obama 49 percent to 45 percent — but this is 7 points lower than Obama's 2008 female vote share. Obama captured 56 percent of the female vote in 2008, according to exit polls. And the birth control debate does not seem to have done huge or lasting damage to the Republican party's brand among women. The survey finds that 49 percent of female voters view the Democratic party favorably, while 44 percent view the Republican party favorably."


Poll: Obama down among female voters from 2008 results - POLITICO.com
 
Shipping jobs over seas, you do know that the most liberal city along with the most liberal state of California contracted with China to build the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. I see you failed to mentions this.

What will Romney do to create jobs, first kill job killing Obamacare, bring home the 500 billion we send to Oil Lords every yr and all the jobs that go with it. In other words open our natural resources to explorations. kill job killing regulations, put a hold on the job killing EPA, build Keystone NOW, etc.


Oakland DID NOT CONTRACT WITH CHINA TO BUILD THE BAY BRIDGE. It did have the steel parts manufactured in China but the actual BUILDING is being carried out by American firms.
 
The dot-com bubble didn't cause an all out economic melt down.

That is correct. We responded to it a bit more wisely (read: we responded to it less actively), and thus didn't see years of above-8% unemployment.

The housing bubble caused a lot of people to lose their homes.

devalued capital is devalued capital; though most of those losses were concentrated.

I would say it is easy to forget the dot-com bubble given the loss of homes is more painful than the loss of your nest egg.

perhaps so, we shall see. most boomers, however, haven't lost their home, and most folks that have probably didn't have significant nest eggs at the end of the 90's.
 
Renweables get specific targeted tax breaks that go to consumers that are rediculously high.

Energy Incentives for Individuals in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
1500 for energy improvement
30% of cost of things like solar energy heaters, geothermal heaters, etc
2500 to 7500 plug in vehicle credit
10% of electric vehicle conversion from a gas vehicle up to 4000

Ridiculously high? Have you seen the subsidies of every kilowatt of nuclear power generated?

And you seem to be unaware of how fossil fuel is not penalized for its pollution costs. The government is subsidizing the **** out of fossil fuel by paying for the pollutions costs out of non-fossil taxes. If we factored in the environmental damage costs to fossil fuel, the prices would be far, far higher than what they are now.

And renewable energy is largely not applicable for DPAD credits. Unlike Fossil Fuels.

Again renewables make up less than 10% of energy base but recieve 4x the tax expenditure that oil gets. NG and Coal make up over 50% of our electrical production but recieve very little in tax breaks outside of those normally given to companies.

At a nominal rate, yes on paper they receive more. But that is essentially pretending that none of them generate pollution. The US government is effectively giving them billions every year by not forcing them burden much of any of their costs in pollution. Sure they have to install scrubbers, and containment, but carbon release, particulate release, methane release, soot so on and so forth is not captured in the cost nor reflected upon fossil. You're basically dealing with an incomplete equation.
 
Hmmm...

Hairytic, I find the highlighted statement interesting.

Now, I'm not well educated on Presidents who were businessmen and how well they did...perhaps you are. So, could you give me examples of such Presidents...you know, to substantiate your statement?

Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George W. Bush
 
The dot-com bubble didn't cause an all out economic melt down. The housing bubble caused a lot of people to lose their homes. I would say it is easy to forget the dot-com bubble given the loss of homes is more painful than the loss of your nest egg.

The housing bubble is the direct cause of the dot com bubble.

When the dot com burst, people extracted billions in assets from the stock market and funneled them into housing. It's why housing prices saw a direct jump directly after the stock market tank.
 
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George W. Bush

Good examples.

Hoover was a good President who ran afoul of a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Carter was a good man...but a bad President.
Bush was a good man...and, imo, a good President.

So...I guess Hairytic's blanket statement isn't so good, eh?
 
Good examples.

Hoover was a good President who ran afoul of a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Hoover signed a bill that destroyed 14% of America's economy. And he knew it would. Hoover also raised taxes and cut spending to balance the budget.

Carter was a good man...but a bad President.
Bush was a good man...and, imo, a good President.

So...I guess Hairytic's blanket statement isn't so good, eh?

If you are a completely blind partisan sure.
 
The housing bubble is the direct cause of the dot com bubble.

When the dot com burst, people extracted billions in assets from the stock market and funneled them into housing. It's why housing prices saw a direct jump directly after the stock market tank.

That isn't exactly true. The housing bubble had many causes. I haven't read anything to date that linked the dot com bubble as even a partial cause.
 
Ridiculously high? Have you seen the subsidies of every kilowatt of nuclear power generated?

And you seem to be unaware of how fossil fuel is not penalized for its pollution costs. The government is subsidizing the **** out of fossil fuel by paying for the pollutions costs out of non-fossil taxes. If we factored in the environmental damage costs to fossil fuel, the prices would be far, far higher than what they are now.

And renewable energy is largely not applicable for DPAD credits. Unlike Fossil Fuels.



At a nominal rate, yes on paper they receive more. But that is essentially pretending that none of them generate pollution. The US government is effectively giving them billions every year by not forcing them burden much of any of their costs in pollution. Sure they have to install scrubbers, and containment, but carbon release, particulate release, methane release, soot so on and so forth is not captured in the cost nor reflected upon fossil. You're basically dealing with an incomplete equation.


You, in turn are pretending "green" tech is entirely eco-friendly. It isn't. Just the batteries from electric vehicles is a huge carbon footprint and the manufacture by products are in some ways worse than burning coal or oil.

Companies engaging in manufacturing are eligible for DPAD credits. They dont have to be in the energy business.

Subsidies exist because in many cases they helped build and service the infrastructure that allows for power delivery.

We did not know what the ecological costs were from burning fossil fuels until recently. I would have to give a guess that their regulatory compliance to continue reducing their pollution output is part of how they are "paying" for their pollution costs. But, the EPA standards are going up faster than any business can keep up with and continue operations. A balance needs to be struck so that we arent closing down viable energy production and lucrative jobs while they continue to upgrade their scrubbers.

All of that said---what are your feelings on natural gas as a cleaner energy alternative?
 
What? Romney isn't a part of the issue? Romney is the choice we have over Obama. Information on how Romney could do better or worse than Obama is a valid point, IMHO.

1) we have 3,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil in the green river formation... USE IT... why pay foreign nations to explore for oil when we need the energy and jobs here?
 
1) we have 3,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil in the green river formation... USE IT... why pay foreign nations to explore for oil when we need the energy and jobs here?


There may be 3 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Green River Formation - BUT - the best estimates say only about 40 to 50% of that total is recoverable using modern technology. So why isn't an effort being made to extract the oil. Simple answer - it often takes more energy to produce usable petroleum products from the Green River rocks than the product would provide. There are also economic reasons, cost of extraction per barrel of shale oil is greater than the present price of oil

An explanation of oil shale is here
...the oil shale industry has not developed because historically, the cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil. The lack of commercial viability of oil shale-derived oil has in turn inhibited the development of better technologies that might reduce its cost.

The economic problem has been noted by those with an interest in the possibility of extracting shale oil but so far costs are higher than potential profits
the Green River formation is the source of talk of those enormous oil resources — larger than those of Saudi Arabia — and it is a very different prospect than the tight oil being produced in North Dakota and Texas. The oil shale in the Green River looks like rock. Unlike the hydrocarbons in the tight oil formations, the oil shale (kerogen) consists of very heavy hydrocarbons that are solid. In that way, oil shale more resembles coal than oil. Oil shale is essentially oil that Mother Nature did not finish cooking, and thus to convert it into oil, heat has to be added. The energy requirements — plus the fact that oil shale production requires a lot of water in a very dry environment — have kept oil shale commercialization out of reach for over 100 years.



Now - think about this: Americans are presently complaining about the high price of gasoline. Can you imagine the reactions if the market price of oil reached the point where shale oil extraction becomes economically viable?
 
That isn't exactly true. The housing bubble had many causes. I haven't read anything to date that linked the dot com bubble as even a partial cause.

Its a speculator argument and its quite sound. They stampeded out of the dotcoms and into the housing market, it was a cooked goose by 2005-2006. Almost no one was talking about median income indexes versus housing prices and they were approaching 5 to 1 before they crashed. Which, with that kind of valuation, they damn sure should have.
 
There may be 3 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Green River Formation - BUT - the best estimates say only about 40 to 50% of that total is recoverable using modern technology. So why isn't an effort being made to extract the oil. Simple answer - it often takes more energy to produce usable petroleum products from the Green River rocks than the product would provide. There are also economic reasons, cost of extraction per barrel of shale oil is greater than the present price of oil

An explanation of oil shale is here

The economic problem has been noted by those with an interest in the possibility of extracting shale oil but so far costs are higher than potential profits




Now - think about this: Americans are presently complaining about the high price of gasoline. Can you imagine the reactions if the market price of oil reached the point where shale oil extraction becomes economically viable?

Current prices already meet that level...

Oil Shale Economics said:
The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the cost of shale-oil production in a given region comes in below the price of crude oil or its other substitutes (break-even price). The United States Department of Energy estimates that the ex-situ processing would be economic at sustained average world oil prices above US$$54 per barrel and in-situ processing would be economic at prices above $35 per barrel. These estimates assume a return rate of 15%.[6] The International Energy Agency estimates, based on the various pilot projects, that investment and operating costs would be similar to those of Canadian oil sands, that means would be economic at prices above $60 per barrel at current costs. This figure does not account carbon pricing, which will add additional cost.[4] According to the New Policies Scenario introduced in its World Energy Outlook 2010, a price of $50 per tonne of emitted CO2, expected by 2035, will add additional $7.50 per barrel cost of shale oil.[4]

So why not keep the $ here at home? It would mean more federal revenue, and it would mean less money funding countries around the world that are not acting in our interest, but with whom we interact because we need the trade.
 
Oakland DID NOT CONTRACT WITH CHINA TO BUILD THE BAY BRIDGE. It did have the steel parts manufactured in China but the actual BUILDING is being carried out by American firms.

The steel parts, give me a break, they are the whole sections of the bridge built in China and floated on barges and then we put our hand on it and lift the bridge in place. The actual bridge is built in China. Now I ask you, why did they contract with China to supply anything? Look forward to you answer.

you sound like that's all ok for the most liberal city and state to contract billions of dollars to China to build a bridge. But as long as we put the modules on place, we built it. I guess when Romney shipped jobs overseas that was OK as long as the company had a one person office in the states.
 
The steel parts, give me a break, they are the whole sections of the bridge built in China and floated on barges and then we put our hand on it and lift the bridge in place. The actual bridge is built in China. Now I ask you, why did they contract with China to supply anything? Look forward to you answer.

you sound like that's all ok for the most liberal city and state to contract billions of dollars to China to build a bridge. But as long as we put the modules on place, we built it. I guess when Romney shipped jobs overseas that was OK as long as the company had a one person office in the states.



Don't know much about building bridges, do ya?



Then there is the ever-so-small matter that on the one hand we have righties constantly complaining about how government employees never do anything but waste "our" money and in the present case complaining because officials in the "most liberal city" saved taxpayers money by buying materials from the cheapest source.


Just admit it, you prefer living in a nation where your taxes pay for nothing but the military, everything else should be paid for by individuals who can afford things like police protection, firemen, safe roads, non-toxic food and drugs - you know, all those things that are presently paid for with 'wasted' taxpayer dollars.
 
You, in turn are pretending "green" tech is entirely eco-friendly. It isn't. Just the batteries from electric vehicles is a huge carbon footprint and the manufacture by products are in some ways worse than burning coal or oil.

It's not, but in terms of environmental damage in America, it's far, far, far less. In an ugly fashion, it's a race to the bottom. We import much of the finish product, and we install it. Some solar is pretty clean in manufacturer, and while large Molten Salt and conventional PV does cause lots of damage initially in setup, it's nothing like the pollution from a coal plant even with scrubbers.

Companies engaging in manufacturing are eligible for DPAD credits. They dont have to be in the energy business.

But there are special credits within DPAD for fossil. I see them every day as I do corporate and individual returns.

We did not know what the ecological costs were from burning fossil fuels until recently.

Well, we had a inkling, but nothing like we know now. Essentially the discussion over climate change is wrong. We're basically screwed in preventing it. We should be focused on mitigation of the changes. We pumped something like a trillion cubic feet of Co2 into the air since the industrial revolution. That ALONE is going to screw us. We could cut to nothing and still face significant changes. The discussion we should have is not if its happening, but how to mitigate it. Reducing will help a bit, but we're so close as it is to the threshold that it frankly doesn't matter if we stop adding to the mess. Sucks to be Bangladesh.

I would have to give a guess that their regulatory compliance to continue reducing their pollution output is part of how they are "paying" for their pollution costs. But, the EPA standards are going up faster than any business can keep up with and continue operations. A balance needs to be struck so that we arent closing down viable energy production and lucrative jobs while they continue to upgrade their scrubbers.

That's true. But in terms of emissions within the US, they aren't even close to what renewable does. In that aspect, they are getting monster subsidies. Local, state and the fed all cover the costs that regulatory compliance doesn't remove.

All of that said---what are your feelings on natural gas as a cleaner energy alternative?

I like the concept. What bothers me is the water pollution in hydraulic fracturing. People in certain areas are able to lit their faucets on fire. Water should not be a flammable source! That is frightening. And localized earthquakes are becoming more and more frequent in areas of major fracking. We need to fix those issues before we should go on massive development. I don't have a problem with natural gas per se, it's more of certain methods we use to extract it.

One "natural" gas I think we should be going hog *** wild on is methane recapture from landfills. Not only is that releasing methane into the air, but it's totally wasted energy. If we capped and captured the gas from our millions of landfills, we'd be generating huge amounts of relatively clean, inexpensive energy. That is a truly American energy source, Our waste, Our Energy.
 
That isn't exactly true. The housing bubble had many causes. I haven't read anything to date that linked the dot com bubble as even a partial cause.

[A-List] Shiller's forecast for U.S. housing

Tried barrons but it was limited in total view.

""Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary
outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed. Where
else could plungers apply their newly acquired trading talents? The
materialistic display of the big house also has become a salve to bruised
egos of disappointed stock investors. These days, the only thing that comes
close to real estate as a national obsession is poker."
 
Back
Top Bottom